Technical Merit Review Criteria Pilot Topic Area Criterion

Technical Merit Review Criteria: Pilot Topic Area • Criterion 1: Technical Merit, Innovation, and Impact (50%) 1 – Level of technical quality, clarity, and completeness of application – Sufficient data provided on the condition of the well and feasibility of the proposed re-work / re-completion – Willingness of site operator to allow the full range of potential testing activities to occur in the proposed well(s) – Sufficient data provided on target well(s) including stratigraphy, /lithologic column, temperature profile, baseline flow rate, results of injection/flow tests, well completion history, etc. , illustrating that proposed wells will meet DOE goals for this effort. – Adequacy of site characterization data including basic geologic data, geophysical/geological logs, seismic surveys as relevant to seismic and environmental risk. – Adequacy and completeness of the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) including a descriptions of how all objectives will be met

Technical Merit Review Criteria: Pilot Topic Area (continued) • Criterion 2: Project Management Plan (10%) – Soundness of the project management concept with respect to proposed tasks and organizational structure to achieve project/phase objectives – Clarity and completeness of a plan to address potential risks and liabilities (e. g. , technical, financial, and environmental) that are associated with the project including a discussion of the proposed well rework (as applicable) and collaboration with FORGE awards. – Likelihood of achieving project objectives through realistic milestones, timely schedule, and task structure • Criterion 3: Team and Resources (40%) 2 – The capability of the Principal Investigator(s) and the proposed team to address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success. The qualifications, relevant expertise, and time commitment of the individuals on the team; – The sufficiency of the site and available wells to support the work including extent of the characterization, planning and regulatory and environmental permitting of the target site – The reasonableness of the budget and spend plan for the proposed project and objectives.

Technical Merit Review Criteria: Amplify Topic Area • Criterion 1: Technical Merit, Innovation, and Impact (50%) – Adequacy and completeness of the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) including a descriptions of how all objectives listed in the Project Phase Descriptions in Part I will be met – Level of technical quality, clarity, and completeness of application – Technical merit and feasibility of the proposed work (i. e. , is it based on sound scientific/engineering principles and on an understanding of current state of the art technology/methods in the geothermal industry) – Extent that proposed site characterization/well stimulation methods will advance technologies necessary for EGS development demonstration – Adequacy of existing site characterization data and geologic/geothermal model including data on rock properties, stratigraphy/lithology, temperature profile, petrologic/mineralogical evaluations of cuttings/core, geophysical/geological logs, stress data seismic data, etc. to support project objectives – Adequacy of data on target well performance/history including baseline flow rate, results of injection/flow tests, well completion history, stimulation history, etc. to support project objectives 3

Technical Merit Review Criteria: Amplify Topic Area (continued) • Criterion 2: Project Management Plan (10 %) – Soundness of the project management concept with respect to proposed tasks and organizational structure to achieve project/phase objectives – Clarity and completeness of a plan to address potential risks and liabilities (e. g. , technical, financial, and environmental) that are associated with the project including a discussion of the proposed well rework and/or stimulation plan (as applicable) – Likelihood of achieving project objectives through realistic milestones, timely schedule, and task structure – Appropriateness of proposed Go/no-go decision points • 4 Criterion 3: Team and Resources (40%) – The capability of the Principal Investigator(s) and the proposed team to address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success. The qualifications, relevant expertise, and time commitment of the individuals on the team; – The sufficiency of the facilities to support the work including Extent of the characterization, planning and regulatory and environmental permitting of the target site – The degree to which the proposed team demonstrates the ability to facilitate and expedite further development and commercial deployment of the proposed technologies; – The level of participation by project participants as evidenced by letter(s) of commitment and how well they are integrated into the Workplan; and – The reasonableness of the budget and spend plan for the proposed project and objectives.